continues
contribution of Professor Héctor Samour to which we referred earlier in February 1 post shelling some key philosophical and intellectual project Ellacuría human. It is noteworthy that affects their work, and JM Romero to that appointment, to connect to the philosopher of liberation with conceptions of the first generation of the Frankfurt School. This is where is also the crucial point to wield a critique of postmodern positions skeptical-release a critical project like Ellacuría. This is what we mentioned in previous posts as well as immanent critique (immanent transcendence). This criticism was advanced by the School of Frankfurt and Benjamin (p. 49), and consisted of crack formation real social order to its reconfiguration from itself and within its borders. Thus, Benjamin's messianism messianism was immanent, that is, whose truths were learned from the dialectical interpretation of the cracks, failures and aspirations expressed in the history marginally (through the construction of constellations of meaning.) In the words of Dr. Samour: "It is therefore a normative critique immanent critique that seeks to contrasting social systems can be an-other, which serves to make evident the social pathologies and injustices of those systems. But it is an immanent critique, because it is not possible merely imagined otherness or fantasy, but something based on the real alternative that offers the same historical process of specific societies, ie based on the reality criticized and based on experience "(p. 50). It is not, therefore, of utopianism in the sense of external reality opposed designed by the imagination of the real split. It is not escapism. In this, the most orthodox Marxist terms, Lukacs also, as I am reading his History and class consciousness , unlike the utopianism of what we might call a real utopia from a class consciousness in conscious connection with the practice history. In Marxism has been, Lukacs himself says in his book, this danger messianic "bourgeois" consisting of a form of idealism that does not fit well with the historical reality and which seeks to reconfigure from outside, from the fanciful imagination divided. Anyway, as I read and Lukacs Ellacuría comparatively evident to me that best explains Ellacuría materialism and ensures that utopian thinking does not degenerate into idealism, which in Lukacs's Marxist materialism is not so clear. I seem to distinguish a certain idealism in Lukacs depositing the key to explaining the whole of historical reality in the dialectical method, which sounds like an attempt to impose a conceptual straitjacket to the reality that prevents other interpretations perhaps more appropriate and materialistic reality, the priority in relation to the attempt to capture both stressed Ellacuría from Zubiri. In fact, in a footnote on page Samour professor makes an interesting observation about how a critical project and liberating, in the style of Ellacuría, does not deny the historical reality, as this project is open and relies on the opening of the story itself, which houses an important component of chance and indeterminacy, by its very structure whose possibilities of reconfiguration are diverse and reconfigured structure arising out of different possibilities for the new (p. 48).
points, then the similarity of approach Samour immanentist the early Frankfurt School to the Salvadoran Basque philosopher: "In Ellacuría find a similar position in relation to criticism. You could say that its conception provides the basis for an understanding of the factual and historical criticism, avoid allowing the reference to an ideal or universal formal policy parameters transcendental character, whose tendency is to fall into a dangerous abstraction incompatible with historical immanence "(p. 51). It is true that at other times less abundant, says the same author in another footnote on page Ellacuría has resorted to a Kantian type formalism to emphasize that the civilization of capital is immoral because it involves the extinction of the planet. The universalization of that civilization, with its consumerism, individualism, social Darwinism and lack of solidarity is incompatible with human life, physical existence of man whose destruction threat (p. 51).
The transcendent aspect of immanent critique is that Ellacuría, ruling out the paradox that this could mean, "(...) the critique becomes a transcendent historical analysis, not because judges and criticism from an instance suprahistorical or from absolute values, but because it tries to separate critical from a concrete reality for measuring and judging from its historical alternatives, since the real possibilities "(p. 52). It involves identifying the possibilities of reality from itself, as intended by the dialectical analysis of Benjamin and Adorno. It is targeted at all of them to go behind appearances towards the possibilities implied in the intricacies of social-economic structure. This is what Marxists like Lukacs dialectically understand how to analyze a mode of production beyond the surface of isolated facts, to analyze the concrete and the sites as a whole that is linked and present in Part. It is what it claims, according to Lukacs, historical materialism that explains the development of modes of production and once again I remember, Ellacuría taken with caution, and emphasizing its partial application to the study of different types of dynamics (not necessarily dialectic) in historical reality. Yes Ellacuría understood the possibility of a theory of history (the study of the role of some notes, such as sex or life expectancy in the course of history) but never a philosophy of history (understood as that which states priori meaning to historical global course).
Finally, points Professor Samour, that the statutory criterion of criticism, so immanent removed from the reality, is what, according to Zubiri, one's own time "can give of themselves in the face of further humanization and personalization of individuals and social groups, which is lit from the level of training of the subjectivity of that time "(pp. 52-53). This is what we pointed out a few days ago to realize the possible rift between from reality and what actually becomes that reality, the difference between the possible and within a given historical reality. It is from this finding, which requires both see but permitted possibilities given by the historical reality, as embodied immanent criticism Ellacuría.
0 comments:
Post a Comment